The PAX Good Behavior Game: One Model for Evolving a More Nurturing Society

On the basis of this theoretical analysis, the PAX system employs a set of kernels that cultivate shared relational networks that identify and promote specific forms of prosocial behavior and discourage behavior that is inconsistent with prosociality. The opening gambit in the process of implementing the PAX system is jointly creating the PAX Vision. The teacher asks students what they would see, hear, feel, and do, “if this were the most wonderful classroom you could imagine.” Then, the teacher asks them what they would see, hear, feel, and do less of, “if this was the most wonderful classroom.” Their answers go onto a large poster, which remains prominently posted in the classroom throughout the year, often referred to, and updated when necessary. While the Vision process can seem similar to standard procedures to create classroom rules, it is a highly participatory process, where the students play a central role in creating the vision, which is different from a top-down process where the teacher establishes the rules or values and, at best, might ask the students for examples. Participatory processes increase commitment to what is specified (Mager & Nowak 2012) and reduce the tendency for oppositional responses from students. This group process results in students developing a shared set of norms, which recruits the social influence of other students in support of the specified norms.

The teacher labels the things students would like to have more of as “PAX” and the things students would like to have less of are labeled “Spleems,” a made-up word with no prior relational network attached to it that is intended to refer to undesirable behavior in a neutral, non-emotional way, aiming to minimize stressful and stressing reactions to undesired behavior and, instead, promote a calm, collegial approach to having fewer Spleems. The neologism was explicitly designed to reduce previously conditioned autonomic arousal from words like “bad” or “negative”.

It is important to understand the way in which the word “PAX” functions in the relational network the teachers and students are establishing. It stands in a hierarchical relation to a whole network of concepts and behaviors (Gil-Luciano et al. 2017), meaning that the value of a given stimulus (e.g., a word referring to a behavior) is affected by the stimuli the child relates to that stimulus. By using the word, group members can invoke not simply one concept, but the entire shared vision of the culture of the classroom or school that was established by relating PAX to a variety of positively valued words and behaviors. Second, by labeling a behavior as PAX, one can immediately enhance the value of that behavior for the listener due to its newly created relationship to the existing network of valued words and behaviors. Using the PAX Vision operationalizes the original Turkkan (1985) GBG manual that said: “…consider letting students participate in defining target behaviors and setting criteria. There is some evidence that if children are allowed to help in setting their own standards and contingent tasks, the probability of on-task behavior increases” (p. 6).

Teachers and students continue to use PAX Vision throughout the year, often on a daily basis, to build norms for prosocial behavior, and to expand the network of behaviors related to PAX and those related to “Spleems.” In this way, PAX Vision provides the initial framework for making a broad array of prosocial behaviors more reinforcing. In general, most kernels involve verbal descriptions of PAX or Spleems, which contributes to the development of the shared network of relations that motivate PAX and discourage Spleems. The PAX Vision functions as an overarching framework, connecting all PAX kernels to the students’ shared norms.

The PAX Leader kernel engages students in self-modeling (Hitchcock et al. 2003) in which they describe things that they and other students do to promote PAX. Each time students talk about what they or others do to create PAX, they are elaborating their relational network about PAX. Students also nominate other students as PAX Leaders, thereby providing social reinforcement for diverse forms of prosocial behavior. Meaningful roles give students things to do in the classroom or school that communicate trust in the student. These roles further expand the ways in which prosocial behavior becomes reinforcing. Each role involves prosocial behavior. Examples include taking the roll, organizing bulletin board displays, and greeting fellow students as they come into class. Such positive roles elicit peer reinforcement for prosocial behaviors (Ellis et al. 2016).

In addition to drawing on research on the impact of relational networks on motivation (Hughes & Barnes-Holmes 2016), kernels that expand relational networks about PAX are consistent with research in social psychology that shows the value of participation in decision-making for motivating behavior (Zimmerman & Rappaport 1988) and on evidence that humans are more likely to engage in specific behaviors when they associate those behaviors with important values (Cialdini & Goldstein 2004; Deci & Ryan 2008). This is also congruent with the vast research on self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci 2008) that emphasizes autonomy and relatedness as key factors to facilitate motivation.

This kernel consists of a set of brief, simple, fun activities that students can engage in as rewards for playing the game successfully or engaging in other desirable behavior. Examples of Granny’s Wacky prizes include making animal noises for 30 s, arm wrestling, playing hangman, crumbling pieces of paper and throwing them around the room, and having a conga line. None of these rewards involves food or costs any money. Consistent with the Premack Principle (Premack 1962), most are activities typically prohibited in classrooms.

The selection and inclusion of the prizes bend toward physically active prizes for a variety of scientific and child-development reasons: (1) self-regulation is contextual, and the variety of actions, emotions, timing, numbers of people scaffold complex self-regulation skills, and (2) the physical activities have other health benefits based on medical research in better academics and physical health (Donnelly et al. 2009, 2013).

Tootle Notes are praise notes. Skinner, Cashwell, and Skinner (2000) developed tootling, a peer-based class-wide intervention in which students reported on other peers’ positive, prosocial behaviors. They based the name of the intervention on a positive variation of tattling that often occurs in the classroom and is a derivation of the idiom, “tooting your own horn” (Lambert et al. 2015; Wright 2019).

With Tootle Notes, students as early as first grade learn to write praise notes to classmates. A 10-min exercise during which each student writes a praise note to another, often randomly chosen, student can infuse a classroom with recognition and appreciation for classmates. Teachers can also write Tootle Notes and children can write Tootle Notes to teachers. Children are encouraged to bring notes they receive home. This can prompt parents to provide further positive support for their child’s behavior. Tootle Notes massively increase the level of recognition, praise, appreciation, which improves prosocial skills and interactions with peers, particularly for socially withdrawn students (Nelson et al. 2008). Moreover, Tootle Notes further expand children’s relational networks about PAX by associating all of the praised behavior with PAX.

The OK/Not OK cards go on student’s desks and the teachers’ lanyard and enable the teacher simply to touch OK or Not OK to signal a mild, non-verbal/-auditory consequence for behavior. The cards’ design minimizes student arousal and avoids debates about their behavior. The PAX system encourages teachers to provide at least five OKs for every Not OK. The aim of the OK/Not OK cards is also to reduce teacher verbal reprimands (Caldarella et al. 2020), which worsen children’s behavior.

There is evidence that using random calling, which the PAX system labels as PAX Stix, with students increases engagement and learning (Keen 2006; Maheady et al. 2002; Martino & Sala 1996). The teacher prepares a container with popsicle sticks, with each stick having the name of a student in the class. It functions as an antecedent to paying attention to the teacher’s behavior because students know that the teacher may call on them. PAX Stix also scaffolds the ability of shy, anxious, or socially isolated children to participate.

The Beat the Timer kernel challenges students to complete a task efficiently. For example, after establishing a baseline, the teacher may challenge students to make the transition from one activity to another in less than two minutes. Beat the Timer, which is called “reduced allocated time” in the programming of most electronic games, is a key factor in holding attention. School staff learns to provide Granny’s Wacky Prizes often for beating the timer efficiently and with proper behavioral control as a group.

PAX Quiet is designed to get every students’ attention in a way that is not harsh or stressful for students who may be anxious. The teacher blows on a harmonica and makes the peace sign. Children are taught to pause what they are doing, stop talking, make the peace sign, and look at the teacher’s face as an indication that they are paying attention. This kernel facilitates much faster transitions between activities which are important because transitions can consume considerable amounts of time every school day. According to a recent poll (EAB 2019), American teachers estimate that on average they lose 144 min of instruction time each school week due to disruptive behavior. PAX Quiet also reduces harsh interactions from adults trying to manage transitions.

Brief vigorous physical activity increases alertness and concentration. Sibley and Etnier (2003) found “a significant positive relationship between physical activity and cognitive functioning in children.” Of course, it also promotes health (Perry et al. 1997). Opportunities for such activity is highly reinforcing in the context of a classroom, which mostly requires inactivity. Many of the Granny’s Wacky Prizes involves physical activity. These prizes thus serve the dual functioning of reinforcing behavior and prompting healthy physical activity.

Predict, Monitor, and Reflect are designed to integrate kernels involving relational frames, antecedents, and consequences. Before initiating a classroom activity, the teacher asks students to describe some of the PAX and Spleems named in their PAX Vision that are relevant to the activity. During the activity, teachers look for examples of PAX that students have suggested and provide verbal or non-verbal social reinforcement. At the end of the activity, the group has the opportunity to report if they have observed any of the items from their vision during the meeting and they receive encouragement to provide examples. This activity increases reinforcement of PAX and gives friendly reminders about Spleems.

Virtually all components of the PAX system have multiple functions. Developing a shared vocabulary about desirable and undesirable behavior influences behavior through the principles involved in rule-governed behavior (Hayes et al. 1986). That is, most human behavior is a function of verbal relations. However, without positive consequences that agree with verbal rules, rule-following is unlikely to endure. In PAX, there impli

s a continuous interplay between cultivating relational networks and providing positive consequences for behavior that corresponds to children’s relational networks. Similarly, if a teacher awards a Granny’s Wacky Prize when all students respond quickly to PAX Quiet, it strengthens children’s response to the teacher’s signal.

In an RCT conducted in the province of Manitoba, Canada, children in first grade in 197 schools were randomly assigned to receive PAX GBG in the 2011–2012 school year or to be in a waitlist control condition that received PAX in the subsequent school year (Jiang et al. 2018). Notably, the province-wide prevention strategy funding the study did not include coaching because of equity policy issues. Following up at the end of the school year, students in the PAX classrooms scored significantly better on teacher ratings of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman 2001) compared with students in the waitlist condition, for all five SDQ subscales; Prosocial Behavior, Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, and Peer Relationship Problems (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.11 to 0.23). Latent transition analysis indicated that children in the moderate- and high-risk categories on the SDQ were significantly more likely to transition to a lower risk category if they were in a PAX classroom (35.1% probability for medium risk and 44.7% probability for high-risk group, Jiang et al., 2018). Although sensitivity analyses were conducted and found no bias, the large attrition of SDQ-data both at pre- (30.7%) and post-intervention (37.9%) is a weakness in this study. Only relying on ratings by teachers, who are liable to bias as they are also delivering the intervention, is also notable. Other, more objective outcome measures would have added significantly to the strength of this study. Latent transition analysis is a suitable statistical model to analyze and report outcomes of a universal prevention trial beyond traditional effect sizes since most students do not have difficulties and are therefore unlikely to show significant improvements. Fidelity was determined by asking teachers at the end of the school year to fill out an implementation form on the extent of their PAX usage, which can be affected by recency bias and misestimation. The implementation form had an attrition rate of 50%, which undermines the possibility to draw conclusions.

In a second RCT, conducted in Baltimore, Ialongo et al. (2019) compared the impact of PAX with a “standard setting control condition," and a condition that integrated PAX with the Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies program (PATHS; Greenberg et al. 1995). The PATHS program teaches children about their emotions and social skills relevant to emotional regulation. At the measurement conducted 6 months after beginning the intervention, PAX combined with PATHS (PATHS to PAX) showed a small effect (Cohen’s d = 0.08) on independent observations of off-task, disruptive and/or aggressive behavior in the classroom. By using the Johnson-Neyman technique to identify regions of significance, the study found that students who were elevated in Total Problem Behavior at pre-intervention measurement had improvement on this outcome if they received PAX alone (Cohen’s d = 0.05). Similarly, the PATHS to PAX intervention also produced significant minor improvements on four teacher-rated variables, but only for those rated low on these variables at pretest: Readiness to Learn, Authority Acceptance, Social Competence and Emotion Regulation (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.03 to 0.09), measured with the TOCA-R (Werthamer-Larsson et al. 1991) and Social Health Profile (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2010). However, there were no significant main effects for the PAX only (without PATHS) condition compared with control schools. No significant difference was found between the two PAX conditions regarding the dose of GBG use during the school year, nor in the fidelity ratings.

In a third RCT, conducted in Estonia (Streimann et al. 2017, 2015, 2019), PAX GBG was implemented in an initial ten first-grade classrooms to test its adaptation to the Estonian culture. It was then provided to 23 schools in a cluster-randomized trial with 23 schools allocated to a waitlist control. At the two-year follow-up, children receiving PAX had improved their overall mental health (Cohen’s d = 0.39) and reduced conduct problems, peer problems, and hyperactivity (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.17 to 0.24) on the teacher-rated SDQ (Streimann et al. 2019). No improvement was found for SDQ ratings of prosocial behavior. Subgroup analyses were done by using cut-off scores for the SDQ and calculating Odd’s ratios, but no statistically significant differences were found. The two-year follow-up period is a strength, this study would have been even stronger if it had reported independent data and not only teacher ratings as the primary outcome. Fidelity assessment in this study was exemplary, combining mentor ratings and ratings by independent researchers. The dose measure was less optimal, using a retrospective estimate by teachers at the end of the school year rather than collecting data on the number of games and their duration throughout the school year.

A pilot cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in Northern Ireland (O’Keeffe et al. 2017) with 353 children, ages 6–8, at 15 schools (19 classrooms) in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage. Short-term outcomes (12 weeks) reported in a thesis by Mulgrew (2019) indicate significantly improved self-rated student self-regulation (Cohen’s d = 0.42) compared to a passive control group. No other outcomes (SDQ and TOCA) were statistically significant after controlling for clustering on school level. As the study was a pilot trial, it suffered from low statistical power that was further affected by attrition, ending up with almost twice as large sample size in the intervention group compared to control at follow-up.

One RCT studied the use of PAX GBG in an afterschool setting with children in grades 2–5 (Smith et al. 2018), at 76 afterschool sites in diverse geographical areas. Sites were matched pairwise on relevant variables and randomized to either received PAX GBG or “business-as-usual.” Independent, blind to condition observers conducted observations on-site at two pre- and two post-intervention occasions. Fidelity was also independently rated. PAX GBG sites were found to improve observed belonging (γ = 0.23, p < 0.05), and child self-reported hyperactivity using the SDQ (γ = 0.76, p < 0.05), compared to control sites. Sites with high fidelity ratings also showed statistically significant effects on observer ratings of harshness/criticism (γ = -1.11, p < 0.05), supportive relations with adults (γ = 1.83, p < 0.01), appropriate structure (γ = 1.54, p < 0.01), and levels of engagement (γ = 1.82, p < 0.01). No subgroup analyses were conducted. The implementation procedure and outcomes, while outside the scope of this review section, were also studied in greater detail and published separately (Smith et al. 2014).

Summing up the RCT review, there is a fair amount of variation in outcome measures, statistical methods, and follow-up timespans in these studies. Several rely largely on teacher-reported evaluations of students’ progress, such as the SDQ and TOCA. While this is important data, the teachers are not independent raters (Pas & Bradshaw 2014). Increased use of independent behavior observations and objective data records, such as attendance and test scores, would strengthen study designs. The time span of follow-up varies from three months to two years and the Estonian study (Streimann et al. 2019) is the only one reporting outcomes at multiple time points (one and two years), which is helpful in understanding the development over time. There were three different approaches to exploring subgroup effects based on baseline measurements, Latent Transition Analysis (LTA), the Johnson-Neyman technique, and cut-off scores. Both Johnson-Neyman and cut-off scores use rating scale sum scores, which can be problematic (McNeish & Wolf 2020), while LTA also takes the measurement model and measurement error into account. LTA is likely to be the most robust analysis method, but it requires large datasets to be appropriate. All studies report Cronbach’s alpha for their measures, but they do so for pre- and post-measurement together for all groups. This may be described as standard practice, but it does not allow any insight into possible issues with measurement invariance between timepoints and groups. Most studies assessed both fidelity and dose delivered, which is praiseworthy, not least from an implementation perspective. However, the assessment methods could be stronger and more systematic. Retrospective ratings over long time-periods are likely to be unreliable. Finally, two of the studies published study protocols prior to conducting their trial, which is a commendable practice (Streimann et al. 2017; O’Keeffe et al. 2017).

Our review of a number of evidence-based parenting interventions led us to conclude that most of these programs are not doing as much as they could to help parents and children develop a rich relational network about the values and the behaviors that the family wants to promote (Lee et al. 2018). One indication of this is the meta-analysis of family interventions conducted by Van Ryzin and colleagues (2016), which found a significant benefit of a component in a small number of family interventions that promoted children’s positive orientation toward the future. In our view, the component was affecting children’s relational network about the relation between current behavior and its contribution to a positive future.

Ongoing use of the vision the family creates should enrich children’s and parents’ relational networks in ways that would focus attention on prosocial behavior and reduce inadvertently reinforcing attention to problem behavior. For example, using Predict, Monitor, and Reflect, parents could briefly discuss an upcoming event with the child/children, such as a visit to the grocery store, in terms of PAX they want to see and Spleems they might avoid. Then, the parent can praise examples of PAX during the activity and can discuss together how they did in terms of PAX and Spleems at the end of the activity. Some evidence-based family interventions already do this to an extent. For example, Triple P teaches parents to discuss what will be appropriate and inappropriate behavior just prior to an activity such as going into a store (Sanders et al. 2012; Turner & Sanders 2011).

Increased reinforcement is already a key component of most evidence-based family interventions. Granny’s Wacky Prizes and Tootle Notes are concrete ways to increase parents’ reinforcement of PAX behaviors. The prizes provide the parents with brief reinforcing activities to replace or supplement any organized reinforcement system. They can enrich the variety of available rewards and avoid using food or costly rewards. Because they are brief, they are also efficient. Involving the children in creating a repository of prizes they like is likely to increase reinforcement.

Tootle Notes are another concrete way to help parents organize routine praise for children. For example, a parent might establish a routine time to write a Tootle to each child each week. Parents could prompt children to write Tootles to each other or other members of the family. The writing of Tootles also further elaborates children’s and parents’ shared relational networks about PAX. A fun family activity could be to use PAX Stix to identify a family member to write a note to.

Getting children’s attention is the first step in most sequences of interactions—asking children to help set the table or asking them to be quiet. Given the variety of situations in which parents need to get their children’s attention, using a harmonica, such as teachers do in PAX Quiet may not be practical. Instead, parents can establish a pleasant visual or verbal stimulus: e.g., the peace sign or a made-up word said in a warm way. The child might participate in making up the word. Key to the effectiveness of any antecedent is the reinforcement of a positive response to it. A parent could establish this sequence by practicing the antecedent-behavior response and expressing gratitude or on some occasions following it with a Granny’s Wacky Prize.

PAX Stix (random calling) may also be helpful in families. In activities involving multiple children, it will ensure equal amounts of attention and increase children’s sense of fairness. The whole family can be involved with PAX Stix so that the parents also take turns in various activities.

Many of the Granny’s Wacky Prizes involve high levels of physical activity for brief times. Such interludes of activity may help to increase children’s concentration (Hillman et al. 2011; Mahar et al. 2006). Moreover, many children are less active than is good for their health. According to a nationwide study, only 42% of children ages 6 to 11 and 8% of adolescents ages 12 to 19 achieve the recommended 60 min of physical activity per day (Troiano et al. 2008). Parents might collaborate with their children in developing Granny’s Wacky Prizes that involve more extended or intense physical activities they can engage in together. Increasing the physical activity of children is associated with multiple health benefits (Janssen & LeBlanc 2010).

Many workplace practices involve identifying shared values, norms, and desired behaviors to promote group cohesion, cooperation, effectiveness and meaning in work (Bond et al. 2008; Chang & Lee 2007; Daniels & Daniels 2007; Houmanfar et al. 2015; Stewart et al. 2006). This process is critical to evolving an efficient organizational culture (Graham et al. 2017). It increases the groups’ focus on attaining shared long-term goals and visions, which helps improve performance (O'hora & Maglieri 2006). There is also some evidence that a focus on identifying values and related actionable behaviors is associated with increased profitability (Boyce et al. 2015), safety (McSween 2003; Moran 2015; Myers et al. 2010) and prosocial behavior (Atkins & Parker 2012). According to Burnes and Jackson (2011), around 70% of organizational change initiatives fail, and alignment of values seems to be a key part of bringing about lasting organizational change.

The work of Elinor Ostrom (Ostrom & Cox 2010; Wilson et al. 2013; Ostrom 1990) on understanding how groups can successfully manage common-pool resources over time highlights the importance of shared purpose and identity. Ostrom describes this as the first of eight core design principles characterizing a well-functioning group.

PAX Vision provides a structured way for workgroups to develop a shared view of which behaviors the group wants more and less of in the work environment. The process enhances group members’ commitment to the norms and goals they help in establishing (Ludwig & Geller 1997). The “see/hear/feel/do” exercise, in which group members collaborate on what they would like to see either more or less often in the workplace, is perfectly useable with adults as it is with children. Using a wall-mounted board to build the vision, with More sections above and Less sections below, is usually a good way to visualize everyone’s contributions and works as a visual reminder, especially if referred to frequently.

A common limitation of values work is lack of specificity. Talking in broad terms like "respect, honesty, or trust" sounds sensible and has the advantage that most people consider them desirable characteristics. But naming them does not explicitly state what people should be doing more (or less) of, which makes it open to interpretation and difficult to evaluate at the level of implementation. If we simply identify and proclaim values, it seems to have little or no impact on organizational performance (Guiso et al. 2015). We need to provide examples of clear target behaviors to observe, measure, and reinforce. Working with values to create a joint vision is a good opportunity to explicitly teach and encourage the skill of discriminating overt behaviors from the more commonly used language of traits, values, and attitudes. A simple four-field matrix (Fig. 2), inspired by combining the PAX Vision and the ACT Matrix (Polk et al. 2014), on a white board or on paper can help accomplish this. The person facilitating the group vision process prompts participants to give examples of specific behaviors connected to values, attitudes, and traits. For instance, if a participant says “respect” is desirable, the facilitator would write it in the bottom right quadrant, and ask the group to provide examples of behaviors (top right quadrant) promoting “respect” (for a more extensive description, see Johansson 2018). Similarly to the PAX Vision, this participatory process helps build and strengthen shared relational networks that can guide individuals and groups toward creating a more nurturing and productive work environment.

PAX leader, or Meaningful Roles, can be applicable in several ways. Clarifying expectations of job performance and responsibilities might seem like a prerequisite to providing a basic structure for dividing work. But in practice, employees often experience role ambiguity, which contributes to increased levels of stress, and decreased job satisfaction and performance (Patrick & Laschinger 2006; Um & Harrison 1998). Defining roles and expectations more clearly makes it easier for managers to know which behaviors to monitor/follow-up and provides frequent opportunities for (positive) feedback. Connecting a role to relevant parts of the PAX Vision strengthens the values process and work culture by building more dense relational networks.

Tootle Notes, or praise notes, can be given from a manager, a colleague, or anonymously, in private or in public. Increasing the frequency of positive feedback has been shown to impact work satisfaction and performance (Alvero et al. 2001; Gabelica et al. 2012; Wilk & Redmon 1998), increase connectivity in teams (Losada & Heaphy 2004), and increase efficiency if ratio of positive feedback to negative feedback is higher (about 5:1) than that of negative feedback (Losada & Heaphy 2004; Zenger & Folkman 2013).

Granny’s Wacky Prizes (also known as Prize Bowl). The use of a prize bowl can relate to goal setting (Agnew & Redmon 1993; Ramnerö & Törneke 2014; Squires & Wilder 2010) and function as a reinforcer for the achievement of goals or subsets of goals. If a prize bowl is used with rewards in the form of brief voluntary group activities that most employees perceive as fun and uplifting, this can also facilitate creativity and increase productivity (West 2015).

PAX Stix can be useful in randomly selecting groups/pairs for tasks or responsibilities, or for a manager in selecting individuals to observe and reinforce (verbally or by writing) during the day. Achieving greater engagement from all group members may allow the group to tap into the potential advantages of diverse input, improving creativity, innovation, and decision-making (Horwitz & Horwitz 2007; Phillips 2003; van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007).

The Predict, Monitor, and Reflect kernel integrates relational network, antecedent, and reinforcement kernels. It is useful in many organizational settings, e.g., before and after meetings, to repeatedly establish and reinforce the components of the agreed-upon vision. The process typically takes only a few minutes at the beginning and end of a group activity. It is recommended to use PAX Stix to randomly select which group members speak up, to promote engagement and participation from all group members. This strengthens and helps evolve the shared relational network of behaviors that contribute to a desirable work environment.

The intervention began by helping each youth identify the goals he wanted to work on. Each engaged in multiple instances of a goal-mapping, a variation of the PAX Vision. It prompted the youth to identify important things they wanted to achieve, both in the short term (e.g., a couple of weeks) and in the longer term (several months to approximately a year). The Goal/Node Map (Collier et al. 2001; Peel & Dansereau 1998; Pitre et al. 1997) asked them to specify on the map an important goal, how and why it was important to them, what immediate measurable steps they might take toward achieving the goal, who might help them (with prompts to expand their perceived resources), what might get in the way of their efforts, and how they might meet that challenge. They revisited the process often, getting peer feedback with the group leader’s assistance.

The young men were able to elaborate further on their relational network about themselves, their behavior, and their community through activities similar to the PAX Leader kernel. In PAX Leader, students expand their prosocial behavior when they speak about their own and others’ prosocial behavior. In the juvenile justice setting, these young people became leaders, who were creating a map for their futures for things they cared about deeply. The young men earned recognition from each other, staff, and parole officers for doing “PAX.” They also learned to recognize the valued traits in others in the community, their families, and others as part of their “leadership” role.

Every participant had multiple meaningful roles for helping run the program, which included preparing meals for the whole group, creating menus, cleaning up, helping with paperwork, greeting family members or visitors, and other tasks that helped the community.

The intervention also helped to break down some verbal boundaries these young men presumably had involving gang membership. A young man’s identification with a gang can be a highly motivating relation that interferes with forming relationships with young men who may be members of other gangs while it encourages antisocial behavior that is in a hierarchical relationship with the gang name and associated symbols. To change these relational networks, each young man was randomly assigned to “crew” of five with whom they worked collaboratively.

Finally, one facet of building the prosocial relational networks of these young men involved exposing them to aspects of their community that were unfamiliar to them. The program also sought to expose the young men to many features of their community with which they had no experience. For example, they had little experience in the broader world of visiting stores, museums, political events, neighborhood events, etc. Despite their criminal pasts, few had real-world experiences beyond their perceived gang turfs. They had phobias of novel situations, which paradoxically assured they did not experience or learn about new opportunities.

Each individual learned to write positive notes (on paper or via cell phone) to other members of their crew, and other crews for prosocial behaviors. Each young man also started to write positive notes to their parole officers, counselors, educators, and even others at community events for promoting the values of PAX.

As we indicated above, the Granny’s Wacky Prize is a modification of the Prize Bowl, a particularly effective system of reinforcement (Embry & Biglan 2008). In the Pima County program, if a team member did something that was part of his goal map, he could draw from a Prize Bowl of small rewards. Once a day (out of four days of meeting), the facilitator would draw one name for a young man to complete a drug urinalysis. If the test was negative, the man could then draw from a “bigger” Prize Bowl (such as a gas or iTunes card), and the prize went to the member’s crew. In this way, the actions of one member rewarded the entire crew. Doing this created considerable peer support for not using drugs, presumably a reversal of the existing social contingencies for these young men.

Learning the actual extensive rules of parole, staying clean, and participating in potent re-entry and skill-building were gamified by having one’s crew (made up of members of rival gangs) win, too, when a member was making progress toward successful parole each day and week. The gamification increased peer cooperation and positive citizenship rather than increased deviant behavior found when such groups are aggregated (Dishion et al. 1996).

Beat the Timer can help to focus attention on completion of many tasks, simulating future work environments or educational situations. For example, at the end of each session, we used Beat the Timer to motivate rapid clean-up of the room. We also used the timer to motivate rapid peer tutoring.

We could engage people in a visioning of what we want to see, hear, do, and feel more of if the nation were moving toward becoming a better place for all Americans. The phrasing of the question is important. If you said, “America could become the best place it could be,” some would argue that it already is.

We have been using the practices of PAX Vision to get high school students and community leaders to envision what they would like more of. Figure 3 shows a word cloud for community leaders in one community in Oregon. The size of the word is a function of how many people used it. Doing word clouds for in many settings, for instance with teachers in a middle school/high school in Oregon, and with behavioral scientists and clinicians in Italy, we've found their aspirations to be very similar.

This strategy could lead neighborhoods, school boards, city councils, communities, state legislatures, and the national congress to unite around the qualities they want in their settings. Instead of focusing on policy objectives, people would focus on the qualities they want their day-to-day interactions to have. The question might be, “If [this group or body] became the most effective and satisfying one that you had ever been involved with, what would you see, hear, do, and feel more often?” With respect to neighborhoods, Gershon (2009) reports success in getting neighbors and other groups to cooperate by starting with a discussion about their aspirations for the future.

Predict, Monitor, and Reflect could be used in conjunction with a word cloud in an ongoing fashion to guide groups in increasing the values and behaviors they have specified in specific activities. For example, a city council might ask councilors to say what qualities they think they will see in today’s meeting. At the end of the meeting, they could do a Process Check (Glaser & Glaser 2006) in which all the councilors mention something they saw that was in keeping with the group’s goals and aspirations.

At regular intervals, members of the group would write a praise note to another member of the group. For example, a legislature might have “Tootle Tuesday” in which each legislator would write a note of praise to another legislator. Using the random calling procedure, the principle underlying PAX Stix, the group might choose at random the person who will receive the praise. Another example comes from Swedish political Twitter, where a person posted something she admired about a person whom she did not agree with politically and asked others to do the same (Azzat 2019), initiating a flow of posts with positive notes of political opponents.

We need to increase recognition for political leaders who exemplify PAX. How often have you heard a public official praise the efforts of someone who is traditionally on the opposite side of most issues? In the United States federal politics, it has been relatively rare, but there have been instances in which political leaders took steps that were conciliatory or favorable to compromise. One example is John McCain’s call for Senate Republicans and Democrats to engage in respectful discussion about their differences.